Oil boom, housing bust alter spending trends
The boom in shale drilling didn't cause as big a windfall in increased consumer spending for Pennsylvania since the recession ended as it did for other oil and gas states.
State-by-state data released Thursday for the first time by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed wide variation in spending by consumers — the engine of the nation's economy — since the recession ended in 2009.
The growth in Pennsylvania was barely ahead of the national average at 11 percent. Spending in North Dakota, where fracking has become a critical part of the state's economy, surged 28 percent from 2009 to 2012. And in Oklahoma, spending increased 16 percent.
It shouldn't be surprising that Pennsylvania didn't have the same gains as smaller energy-rich states, said Mark Price, an economist with the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg. Despite the attention shale drilling gets, it accounts for less than a percent of all non-farm jobs and is going to have less of an economic impact than in rural states like North Dakota, he said.
“You throw a rock in a small pond and it's going to generate big waves that you can see,” Price said. “You throw a rock in an ocean, they still happen, but they're going to be more difficult to see.”
The data offered a picture of how the economic recovery has varied throughout the country. In states hit hard by the housing crisis, the recovery has been slower.
Spending increased 3.5 percent in Nevada and just 6.2 percent in Arizona, the two weakest states. Home values plummeted in both states during the housing crisis.
Pennsylvania's consumer spending figures bore out the post-recession narrative that many economists have told. That is, Pennsylvania did not experience the extreme rise in home prices during the boom years and did not fall as hard during the ensuing bust.
During the depths of the recession in 2008-09, per-capita spending fell 0.3 percent in Pennsylvania compared to a 2.5 percent decline nationwide.
“That's either associated with home prices values that didn't decline very sharply at all, or it could be associated with fracking, which was really ramping up during that time,” said Guhan Venkatu, an economist based in Pittsburgh with Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
Pennsylvanians' per capita spending was $37,618 in 2012, higher than the U.S. average of $35,498. Health care accounted for the largest single category of spending in Pennsylvania, at $6,841, followed by housing and utilities, at $6,044. However, housing expenses were the only category in which Pennsylvanians spent less than the rest of the nation. The U.S. average was $6,415.
While the state saw no dramatic gains one way or another, there is something positive about that for businesses looking at setting up in the state, said Kurt Rankin, an economist at PNC.
“Whether it's high or low ranking, (consumer spending) is stable,” he said. “You can count on that opportunity to remain in place.”
Chris Fleisher is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7854 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Experts: If health insurers’ safeguard goes broke, consumers could pay
- Visa limits vex businesses
- Rules could kick door open for nuclear power
- Camera prevalence approaches sci-fi realm
- Nike, Under Armour invest in watching exercisers’ steps
- Paper’s prevalence unlikely to diminish
- Scented society is killing cheap perfume industry
- Kings Family Restaurants sold to California firm
- ‘Promposals’ can be small as burritos, big as Jumbotrons
- Mylan raises bid for fellow drugmaker; Perrigo says ‘no’
- MedExpress bought by United Health Group